Murphy v. P. & R. C. & I. Co.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Linn, J.,
The question of law is whether there is evidence to support the following finding of fact made by the referee: “4. The claimant was a man fifty years of age. He was afflicted with hardened arteries. The unusual work that the claimant was doing at the moment he was stricken, necessitated him to exert himself to an uncommon degree. This caused his blood pressure to rise. A diseased artery in the brain could not stand the strain and it broke, causing paralysis of his left side; this was an untoward event, an unexpected happening; an accident.”
We think there is evidence to…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Lane v. Horn & Hardart Baking Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1918
- Clark v. Lehigh Valley Coal Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1919
- Hornetz v. Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1923
- Watkins v. Pittsburgh Coal Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
- Samoskie v. Philadelphia & Reading C. & I. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Hamilton v. Procon, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1969
- Royko v. Logan Coal Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1941
- Pelusi v. MandesSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
- Balaban v. SevereSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1945
- Crispin v. Leedom Worrall Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1940
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.